Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 35


Villavicencio vs. Lukb1an No official no matter how
high is above the law.
District of ill repute women Courts.. safeguard individual
sent to Davao s laborers liberty and to punish
-steamer w/o being asked if transgressors
they want to. - if X law: act Xvalid. Even
motive good

Spouses Tuason vs. PD 293 Xvalid exercise

Register of Deeds of Absolute powers corrupt President does not possess Judicial power.
Caloocan- absolutely
- Tuasons bought land A single consolidated
Carmel government would become
- Cancelled by govt by the most corrupt government
virtu of PD infavor on earth.-
Malacanang HOA.
- Camel Farms unpaid

Angara vs. Electoral judiciary mediates to allocate Electoral Commission has the sole jurisdiction to be the judge of all contests
Commission constitutional boundaries. X relating to election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National
Election in the National assert SUPERIORITY other Assembly and not the National Assembly itself.
Assembly departments. - the trust accounts in behalf of the landowner is unjustified.
-X nullify or invalidate an act
-Angara proclaimed: 1stD of the legislature but only
Tayabas asserts the SUPREMACY of
-PR Motion to Protest the constitution.
_A: Reso 8 of NAss. Presbg
pd for protest and PRs
protest filed out of time.
-COMELEC Reso. Denied


Marcos vs. Manglapus Criterion if stae validly The President, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated RESIDUAL
exercised: Confereed by powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are
HINT: RESIDUAL POWERS constitution necessary for her to comply with her duties under the constitution.
- Aquino coupt attemots agst -not express or implied,
Aquino by marcos loyalist maybe inherent ot
-Marcos signified intention incidental
return Ph to die
- considering conseq. BAR
-MAndamu to iissue travel
doc. Lib of abode and R
Casibang vs. Aquino A purely justiciable question ELECTPRAL PROTEST is a justiciable controversy
Declaration of Martial Law

- Yu proc mayor
- Protest by casibang
vio of 71 EC
-CFI: bec JQ
-PD1081:ML & 2mo. 1973
consti effect
-PQ arose. Hence CFI xJ
Garcia vs. Executive Tariff P or Pres
Ad Valorem Tax by the

-EO across d board addtl duty

ad valore.. oil products
- tariff submit reports
Pres another EO special
duty:imported and 1P;other
7. Araneta vs. Dinglasan Emerg P four E.O.s were issued without authority of law as they were issued after the
4 E.O.s (EMERGENCY opening of the regular session of Congress

- CA 671: dec. st8 of E

& Pres to Prom R&R

to meet such E purst

to valid deleg by
- isuued sev Eos:
a. EO62: regu rentals
b. 192: exports
c. restrain Treasurer
disburse moneyf or
natl elec
-P: X fix time limit
8.Chiongbian v. Orbos Where standard maybe found standard is to be found in the same power underlying the grant to the President in
RA 5435 of the power to reorganize the Executive Department, to wit: to promote
Hint: Merger of simplicity, economy and efficiency in the government to enable it to pursue
Administrative Regions programs consistent with national goals xxx

-RA 6734 OA for ARMM:

Sec 13 A19: Xtook part
remain in existing admin
regn HOWEVER pres may
-EO 429 Reorg of Admin reg
-P: P2merg Xinc P2Reorg
-JAldon: Xstandard

9. Kuroda v jalandoni Doctrine of incorporation Hague and Geneva Conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally
Hint: Military Commission to -aply IL even..Xprev accepted principles of international law.
try War Crimes subj..enact
-even if Xsignatory
- EO 68: Natl war , embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive
crime off. Rules ng in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of
trial of acu wqr crim international law as contained in treatises to which our government may have been
-P l.Gen of Jap Imp arm or shall be a signatory.
charge failing to discharge
dutie of commr
10. Secretary of Justice v. IL Xvalid if contra to COnsti

Hint: Extradition of Mark



PD1069: Extrad of P comm8

crime in FC.
Drilon signd RPUS Treaty
E of MJ: fraud US
MJ req copy of re of US
D: evaln of DOJ Xakin to PI
in crim cases hence Consti R
MJ RTC for mandamus
11. Alih v. Castro CA all times upreme. R by passed civ courts. Had auth det PC to search`

Hint: Zamboanga City Zona

op zona in Ali comp.

shoot out
confis amuni
P$ Prohib. As evid and agst
paraffin tes. R agst Self
Incrim & no SW
R: xSW but NECEssary bec
aggravt Peace &order after
assasi of Mayor
12. Lim v. Executive Antipathy tward FOREIgn
Secretary ML

Hint: Balikatan 02-1 Trainings..civ proj: valid

Balikatan 95. (treatment of

US Pers in Ph). VFA 99. Sept
11 attack. Bushs internt anti
terror campgn. 2002,
BAlikatan 02-1 in pH. Purst
MDT 51.
Lim P4Cert and Pro. MDT req
assist fr US armaed attach by
3rd country agst one of them.
-abu sayyaf X 3rdC. X allow

combat ops

13, Calalang v. Williams Def SJ X sympathy tow given grp

Hint: Social Justice

CA 548: aith Dir of PW subj

approv of Sec to prom R&R.
reguln traffic.

NTC reso recom: animal

drawn vehicle Xpass..spec
time and streets.
Dir. Adopt a measure.
P:unconsti agst SJ
Postigo v. PTSI R to labor. nothing in act deprive ee any bene .. EXISTING laws

Hint: Retirement and GSIS


P ee of PSTI. Retiremt B from

GSIS as compul mem.
RA 7641 ammended A287 LC.
( RB to ee in PRIV8 sec ie
- BWC and LA confirm
award but PSTI refus.
Bec it is er In PUBLIC sector.
15. PT&T v. NLRC Equality M and W

Hint: Non-marriage Policy Full protection to labor and

opp emplo
de duzman reliever. June-aug
sept: probationary ee.signed
reliev agt na single. She was
married few mo.earlier
Found out married. Not stais
fd explan.

Dismiss. ID.

16. Oposa v. Factoran R to H and Eco. Fundamtl R

need X written in consti. Exist
Hint: Balanced and Healthful inception. Transcendental imp
Ecology / TLA

Fact sec of DENR grant

timber lic agrrmt comm
loggin purp.
P ent to virgin trop forest.
Protect gen and unboras
paren patriae
16. Villar v. TIP Educ programs good qulait. academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher learning includes the right to
set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades
Hint: Students with failing Satify min stand curri would suffice for the expulsion of the students. Once it has done so, however, that
grades taechng staff mngt viability standard should be followed meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate

Deny enrolmt ng P by tIP

- 2P; 1 fail 1st sem
- recites: 1f 2nd sem
- bareeto: 5f 6F
- no pass.

17. Soriao v. Pineda Art. XIV, Sec. 1. The State deprived of such right with due process of law as stated in Art. III, Sec. 1
shall protect the right of all of the 1987 Constitution
Hint: Senior student with citizens to quality education
attitude problem at all levels and shall take
appropriate steps to make
- verbal notice to Xenrol such education accessible to
as 4th yr. all.
P deprived hearing P Certio
Art. II, Sec. 13. The
State recognizes the role of
the youth in nation-building
and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual and
social well-being. xxx

Art. II, Sec. 17. The

State shall give priority to
education xxx.

18. Philippine Association Free enterprise as policy BUT

of Service Exporters Inc. st8 may INTERVENE for GW
vs Drilon purp.

Hint: Suspension of Equiality Xmean PERFECT

deployment of Filipino IDENTITY OF RIGHTS ng M
domestic workers &W. adm8 calssification

- DO1: guidelines
deploymt DH
P unconsti bec DSCRIMN8
femal and sim skills.
SOL GEN: Pol Pow
19. Association of Free enterprise as policy BUT
Philippine Coconut st8 may INTERVENE for GW
desiccators vs Phil purp.
Coconut Authority

Hint: permits to new plants

PCA created PD323 growth of

coco and palm oi ind. Cocnut
farmer as bene. Issue licen.
BReso Xreq license anymore
promo free enterp.

Result to cutthroat comptn.

APCD mandamus to revoke.

20. Basco vs Pagcor Loc auto=

Hint: Creation of PAGCOR

Not st8 w/in st8

- whc waive roght of manila
to impose taxes. Intrude to Art 2 section 11, 12 and 13
local govt R to impose local are basically not self
fees. executing, meaning a law
should be passed by
Congress to clearly define
and effectuate such
21. pamatong v comelec Prc on equal acces of opp Can tcompel legis to enact ameausre to accomod8 as many
Pamatong vs Comelec 2 pUb serv mere
GUIDELINES not judicially
Hint: Pamatong nuisance enforecble const RIGHT.

COC by P as pres.
Denid tog w/other nuisance.
Bec X rep. by poli Party. O
not wage nationwide

P:R on equal acces of opp

2 pUb serv
22. Legaspi vs Civil Matters of pulic concern.
Service Hence r to access

Hint: eligibilities of employees

in health department

- agas sibinghnoy
Legaspi vs Civil
Service rep as civl
serv eleigbles as
- legaspi req. info
from CS
but denied.
-mandamus. R to disclosure.

23. Aquino-Sarmiento vs no invasion of privacy since

Morato what is sought to be divulged
is a product of action
Hint: MTRCB voting slips undertaken on the course of
official functions
P: req examin voting slips
(see banned cut, calssified).
Pubic in charac. But was

R: personaland need consent.

. issued oard reso. decision
in VS is personal.


Phil Blooming mills Employment org vs Phil bloming mills Co.

Hint: Employees strike vs police

Ponente: Makasiar, J.

Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated the primacy of human rights - freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances over property rights should be sustained.

The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The
wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like
rubbing salt on bruised tissue.

such priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions

Because these freedom are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society and the threat of sanction may
deter their exercise almost as potently as the application of sanction, they need breathing space to survive, permitting government regulation
only with narrow specificity. J Makasiar

Simon vs CHR

Hint: North Edsa vendors

Ponente: Vitug, J.

Civil rights are not connected with the admin or org of the government, they include rights of property, marriage, equal protection
etc. political rights refer to the right to participate in the establishment or administration of the government, the right to suffrage, the right to
hold public office, right appurtenant to citizenship.
Sari sari stores and carenderias cannot fall within the compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by
the constitution.

Quote: n/a

Villegas vs Hui Chiong

Hint: Alien employment permit

Ponente: Fernandez, J.

While it is true the Philippines is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life
without due process of law. This includes means of livelihood. The shelter protection under due process and equal protection is given to all
persons, aliens and citizens.

Quote: n/a

Ermita-malate hotel and motel operators assoc vs city of manila

Hint: Motel regulations

Ponente: Fernando, J.

To satisfy the due process requirement, official action, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due
process is hostile to any action marred by lack of reasonableness. It is freedom from arbitrariness.

(what then is the standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural requisite to free the challenged ordinace from legal
infirmity to spell its doom?) it is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. (tinanong ni sir to sa recit)
Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. It has been held as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the
sporting idea of fair play - Justice Fernando

it exacts fealty to those striving for justice and judges the act of officialdom of whatever branch in the light of reason drawn from
considerations of fairness that reflect tradition and political thought. It is a narrow or technical conception with fixed content unrelated to
time, place and circumstances questions of due process are not to be treated narrowly or pndantically in slavery to form or phrases

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

Hint: To civilize Mangyans

Ponente: Malcom, J.

Civil liberty may be said to mean the measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized society, consistent with the peaceful
enjoyment of others.
The right to liberty guaranteed by the constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. It includes right to use his faculties in all lawful ways.

The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the
faculties which he has been endowed by his creator, subject to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. J Malcolm

liberty is not a license, it is liberty regulated by law implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater
good of the peace and order of society and general well being J Malcolm

every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties, compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other Spencer

liberty is a legal and refined idea, the offspring of high civilization, which the savage never understood, and never can understand Webster

liberty consists in the ability to do what one ought to desire and not being forced to do what one ought not to desire. Montesque

liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong, it is guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual
Apolinario Mabini

Libanan vs sandiganbayan

Hint: Vice governor suspended

Ponente: Vitug, J.

The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Public office is a public agency or trust
and it is not the property envisioned by the constitutional provisions.

Quote: n/a


HINT: Sale of lots


DOCTRINE: Judgments bind only the parties thereto

Consequently, private respondents should have impleaded them in Civil Case No. Q-12918. Since they failed to do so, petitioners
cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a
case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and
not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of
execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.
In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition of their house on
their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: License to operate fish corrals, tractors


DOCTRINES: Indefinite preventive suspension

Denial of Due Process

A preventive suspension may be justified. Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises a due process question.
For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the meanwhile his right to hold office had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in such a case an
injustice suffered by him. Nor is he the only victim. There is injustice inflicted likewise on the people of Lianga. They were deprived of the
services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor. In that sense, to paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted continuance of this
preventive suspension had outrun the bounds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. A denial of due process is thus quite manifest. It is
to avoid such an unconstitutional application that the order of suspension should be lifted." (Quoting Layno vs. Sandiganbayan).

No Equal Protection
According to the opinion of Justice Barrera: To adopt the theory of respondents that an officer appointed by the President, facing
administrative charges, can be preventively suspended indefinitely, would be to countenance a situation where the preventive
suspension can, in effect, be the penalty itself without a finding of guilt after due hearing, contrary to the express mandate of
the Constitution and the Civil Service Law.' Further; 'In the guise of a preventive suspension, his term of office could be shortened
and he could in effect, be removed without a finding of a cause duly established after due hearing, in violation of the
Constitution.' Clearly then, the policy of the law mandated by the Constitution frowns at a suspension of indefinite duration. In this
particular case, the mere fact that petitioner is facing a charge under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not justify a different rule
of law. To do so would be to negate the safeguard of the equal protection guarantee." (Citing Garcia v. Hon. Secretary).

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Ambush and killing of petitioner


DOCTRINE: Impartiality of Judges (Relationship with a party).

This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as the indispensable imperative of
due process. To bolster that requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an
added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just.

Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair
play. Fair play calls for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party
and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing.
Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions
and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. The judge will reach his
conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law.
The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where
this is probable or even only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of sense of delicadeza. For like
Caesars wife, he must be above suspicion.

Note: The following is Justice Cruzs eulogy for Evelio Javier, though not related to the issue, I think I have to include it here just in case..

Let us first say these meager words in tribute to a fallen hero who was struck down in the vigor of his youth because he dared to
speak against tyranny. Where many kept a meekly silence for fear of retaliation, and still others feigned and fawned hopes of safety and even
reward, he chose to fight. He was not afraid. Money did not tempt him. Threats did not daunt him. Power did no awe him. His was a singular
and all-exacting obsession: the return of freedom to his country. And though he fought not in the barricades of war amid the sound and
smoke of shot and shell, he was a soldier nonetheless, fighting valiantly for the liberties of his people against the enemies of his race,
unfortunately of his race too, who would impose upon the land a perpetual night of dark enslavement. He did not see the breaking of the
dawn, sad to say, but in a very real sense Evelio B. Javier made that dawn drew nearer because he was, like Saul and Jonathan, swifter than
eagles and stronger than lions.


HINT: Ninoy Aquino Galman Double murder


DOCTRINE: Double Jeopardy


It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Courts setting aside of the trial courts judgment of
dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process.
More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the case at bar where as we have held, the sham trial was but a
mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely monitored the
entire proceedings to assure the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution as innocent of all the respondents-accused.
A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no
judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw.


If the authoritarian head of the government becomes the lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for t the law, he invites every man to
become a law unto himself, he invites anarchy.

Citing Justice Melencio-Herrera

For justice to prevail, the scales must balance. It is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of the society, which they
have wronged, must also be equally considered. A judgment of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal neither
necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the society offended, it could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts
play a vital role. They render justice where justice is due.

Chief Justice Earl Warren

The Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve only public
interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office, guided only by the Constitution and their own conscience and honor.


HINT: Pubhouse customer stabbed


DOCTRINE: Impartiality of Judge (Propounding of questions by judge)

It is a judge's prerogative and duty to ask clarificatory questions to ferret out the truth. On the whole, the Court finds that the
questions propounded by the judge were merely clarificatory in nature. Questions which merely clear up dubious points and bring out
additional relevant evidence are within judicial prerogative. Moreover, jurisprudence teaches that allegations of bias on the part of the trial
court should be received with caution, especially when the queries by the judge did not prejudice the accused. The propriety of a judge's
queries is determined not necessarily by their quantity but by their quality and, in any event, by the test of whether the
defendant was prejudiced by such questioning. In this case, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the questions
propounded by the trial judge. In fact, even if all such questions and the answers thereto were eliminated, appellant would still be convicted.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Withdrawal from V&G Better Homes Subdivision savings account


DOCTRINE: Impartiality of Judge (Ombudsman participated in the reinvestigation of a case he handled previously as Special Prosecutor).

Ombudsman Desierto, in this case, committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner attributes partiality on the part of Ombudsman
Desierto for having participated in the reinvestigation of the instant case despite the fact that he earlier participated in the initial preliminary
investigation of the same when he was a Special Prosecutor by concurring in the recommendation for the filing of the information before the
Due process dictates that one called upon to resolve a dispute may not review his decision on appeal
Where the circumstances do not inspire confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the judge, such judge should inhibit
voluntarily or if he refuses, he should be prohibited from handling the case. A judge must not only be impartial but must al so appear
impartial as an assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. His actuation must inspire that belief. This is an instance when
appearance is as important as reality.
The same rule of thumb should apply to an investigating officer conducting a preliminary investigation.
The right of petitioner to an impartial review of his appeal starts from the time he filed his appeal. He is not only entitled to an
impartial tribunal in the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Moreover, his right is to an impartial review of three commissioners.
The denial of petitioners right to an impartial review of his appeal is not an innocuous error. It negated his right to due process.

This Court has been consistent in holding that it will not interfere with the Ombudsmans exercise of his constitutionally mandated
investigatory and prosecutory powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who beholden to no one, acts
as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service.


HINT: Minister of Public Information granted benefits DGROUP, a private corporation whose president is his relative


Independence of Prosecutors
We cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is
being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental

objective of serving the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or
strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may the public's perception of the impartiality of the
prosecutor be enhanced.

Due Process and Speedy Disposition of Cases

We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the
constitutional right of the accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary
investigation, including substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor,
is part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the due
process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in
the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions), the inordinate delay is violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights.

QUOTE: It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even the
complete absence of a preliminary investigation does not warrant dismissal of the information. True-but the absence of a preliminary
investigation can be corrected by giving the accused such investigation. But an undue delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation can
not be corrected, for until now, man has not yet invented a device for setting back time. Justice Yap.


HINT: B.P. 22

DOCTRINE: Due Process (Notice of Dishonor)

The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Accordingly,
procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand - and the
basic postulates of fairness require - that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert
prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Security guards, illegal dismissal


DOCTRINE: Due Process (labor case)


Well settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Not all
cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are
given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary
evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or
that such hearing was not necessary.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Contempt; media statements of Ombudsman Raul Gonzales against SC.



Due Process
It is appropriate to recall in this connection that due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, require
the trial-type proceeding, that the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any
evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also
through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.

Freedom of Expression
The Freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on
occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public
interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free
expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be
secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, in other words, of viable
independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community.


Mr. Justice Frankfurter

"A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over
the other; both are indispensable to a free society.
The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated.
And one of the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free press."

Mr. Justice Malcolm

"The Organic Act wisely guarantees freedom of speech and press. This constitutional right must be protected in its fullest extent. The
Court has herefore given regard for charges under the Libel Law which come dangerously close to its violation. We shall continue in this
chosen path. The liberty of the citizens must be preserved in all of its completeness. But license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the
citizens should not be confused with liberty in its true sense. As important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise
of the rights of the citizens is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary. Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if persons are
privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for good purposes, and if such persons are to be permitted by subterranean means to
diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings to the embarrassment of the parties and the courts."

Mr. Justice Castro in In re Almacen

"But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls Of decency and
propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action."
The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the
assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers-even those gifted with superior intellect-are enjoined to rein up their tempers.


HINT: Detail of Civil Aviation Training Center officials


DOCTRINE: Negligence of OSG is binding

Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard and this opportunity was not denied petitioner. Throughout the
proceedings in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals, petitioner had the opportunity to present his side but he failed to do so.
Clearly, petitioners former counsel, the OSG, was negligent. This negligence, however, binds petitioner. The trial and appellate courts
correctly ruled that the negligence of the OSG could not relieve petitioner of the effects such negligence and prevent the decision of the trial
court from becoming final and executory.

In Villa Rhecar Bus v. De la Cruz, which petitioner himself cited, the Court ruled:

It is unfortunate that the lawyer of the petitioner neglected his responsibilities to his client. This negligence ultimately resulted in a
judgment adverse to the client. Be that as it may, such mistake binds the client, the herein petitioner. As a general rule, a client is
bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an
exception thereto be called for. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, no undue prejudice against the petitioner has been
satisfactorily demonstrated. At most, there is only an unsupported claim that the petitioner had been prejudiced by the negligence of its
counsel, without an explanation to that effect. (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, there was no proof that petitioner suffered serious injustice to exempt him from the general rule that the
negligence of the counsel binds the client. Petitioner did not even attempt to refute the respondents allegations in the petition for mandamus
and damages.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Reformation of instrument


DOCTRINE: Due Process (Order of Default)

Well-settled is the rule that courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default for judgments of default are frowned upon,
unless in cases where it clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay. The issuance of orders of default should be the
exception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial
Under the factual milieu of this case, the RTC was indeed remiss in denying private respondents motion to lift the order of default and
to strike out the evidence presented by petitioners ex parte, especially considering that an answer was filed, though out of time. We thus
sustain the holding of the Court of Appeals that the default order of the RTC was immoderate and in violation of private respondents due
process rights.

QUOTE: n/a


HINT: Better Living Subdivision, non-payment of installments


DOCTRINE: Right to appeal

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process, except where it is granted by statute in which case it should be
exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. In other words, appeal is a right of statutory and not constitutional
The fact that P.D. No. 1344 does not specifically provide for judicial review of NHA decisions affirmed or reversed by the President,
does not necessarily preclude judicial review.
The extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or quo warranto, (Rules 65 and 66) are always available in proper cases
where there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The power of the Supreme Court to strike

down acts which infringe on constitutional protections or to nullify administrative decisions contrary to constitutional mandates cannot be
reduced or circumscribed by any statute or decree. No statute is needed to bring arbitrary acts or decisions within our jurisdiction.
On the issue of "affirmance-by-inaction," failure on the part of the President to act upon an appeal does not necessarily mean that the
appealed decision automatically becomes final and executory. Access to the courts of law may still be made as mentioned above. Therefore,
any such decision is far from being final and executory.

QUOTE: n/a


G.R. No. 109721. March 11, 1999

Hint: ESTAFA (failure to file appellant's brief)

Ponente: PARDO, J.:

Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. As such, courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right
to appeal, particularly if the appeal is meritorious. Respect for the appellants right, however, carries with it the correspondent respect for the
appellee's similar rights to fair play and justice. The appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the
requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.

Quote: N/A


G. R. No. 129978. May 12, 1999

Hint: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Ponente: Panganiban, J.:

Clearly, the delay of almost six years disregarded the ombudsmans duty, as mandated by the
Constitutionhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/129978.htm - _edn12 and Republic Act No.
6770,http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/129978.htm - _edn13 to act promptly on complaints before
him. More important, it violated the petitioners rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against them. Although
respondents attempted to justify the six months needed by Ombudsman Desierto to review the recommendation of Deputy Ombudsman
Gervasio, no explanation was given why it took almost six years for the latter to resolve the
Complaints.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/129978.htm - _edn14

Quote: N/A


G.R. No. 46496. February 27, 1940.

Hint: Shortage of leather soles

Ponente: LAUREL, J:

The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements
does not mean that it can, in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of
due Process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in
proceedings of this character:

(1) right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) the decision must have something to supportitself
(4) the evidence must be "substantial."
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.


The liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. - Chief Justice Hughes, in Morgan v. U.

The right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile
if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration. - Court in Edwards vs. McCoy


G.R. No. L-52245. January 22, 1980.

Hint: certificate of candidacy for governor of Nueva Vizcaya of a 65-year old


The assertion that Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. The constitutional
guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real
differentiations, one class can be treated and regulated differently from another class. For purposes of public service, employees 65 years of
age, have been validly classified differently from younger employees. Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement,
while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable.

Explicit is the constitutional provision that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Article IV, section 19, 1973 Constitution). An accusation, according to
the fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a
candidate is disqualified from running from public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military
tribunal. It condemns before one is fully heard. In ultimate effect, except as to the degree of proof, no distinction is made between a person
convicted of acts of disloyalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts, as both of them would be ineligible to run for
public office. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the
same category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension
of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, Revised Penal Code).

Quote: N/A


243 SCRA 666 April 21, 1995

Hint: Filipino Seamen

Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.:

It is an established principle of Constitutional Law that the guarantee of equal protection of law is not violated by legislation based on
reasonable classification. And for classification to be reasonable it: 1) must rest on substantial distinctions; 2) must be germane to the
purpose of the law; 3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; 4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. There can be
no dispute about the dissimilarities between land based and sea based Filipino overseas contract workers in terms of, among other things,
work environment, safety, dangers and risk to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civic and spiritual activities.

Quote: N/A


G. R. No. 132875-76 February 3, 2000

Hint: Statutory Rape

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:

Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the
office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class.

Quote: N/A


G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

Hint: 42 search warrants


Petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance
thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they
hold therein may be.Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby,and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third
parties.Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things
seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in
evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in
proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon
probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe
the things to be seized.

None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications
stating that the natural and juridical persons therein named had committed a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments
thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to
have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is

sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the
applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a legal heresy, of the highest
order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,"
as alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes.

Quote: N/A


A. M. No. RTJ-95-1293. May 9, 1995

Hint: Illegal Fishing

Ponente: Quiason, J.:

Complainant himself admitted that the search and seizure was conducted in the absence of a warrant. The search warrant produced
was issued after the search and seizure took place.

Quote: N/A


G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996

Hint: Sequestration orders of PCGG

Ponente: Francisco, J.:

Being in fact a search warrant, the SEARCH AND SEIZURE ORDER cannot escape, and must pass, the acid test for validity as provided
by the prevailing constitution under which it was issued - the FREEDOM CONSTITUTION which adopted verbatim the provision of the 1973
Constitution (Section 3, Article IV) relating to search warrants, to wit:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the following requisites for a search warrants validity, the absence of even one will cause its
downright nullification:
(1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;

(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the
latter may produce; and
(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

Quote: N/A

NOLASCO et al. vs. PAO

G.R. No. L-69803. October 8, 1985

Hint: general warrant


Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution, guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized.

The disputed Search Warrant (No. 80-84) describes the personalities to be seized as follows:

"Documents, papers and other records of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army and/or the National Democratic Front,
such as Minutes of the Party Meetings, Plans of these groups, Programs, List of possible supporters, subversive books and instructions,
manuals not otherwise available to the public, and support money from foreign or local sources."

It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized.
It is an all-embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National
Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what the manuals not otherwise available to the public
contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching
team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in
fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the
constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized.

Quote: N/A


G.R. No. 81567. July 9, 1990.

Hint: 8 petitions for Habeas Corpus



The persons detained have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, and that the
circumstances attending these cases do not warrant their release on habeas corpus.

Thearrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recognized in law. The occasions or instances when such an
arrest may be effected are clearly spelled out in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:

"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit en offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment
or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7."

An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is justified when
the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the act of committing an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and
the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. The rationale behind
lawful arrests, without warrant, was stated by this Court in the case of People vs. Kagui Malasugui 1 thus:

"To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to
leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape
in many instances."

The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly
committed or were actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that
they are, further, detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.

Quotes: N/A

G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996

Hint: 157 documents and papers

Ponente: Mendoza, J.:

The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of coomunication and correspondence to be inviolable, is no less applicable simply
because it is the wife who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforce4d. The only exception to the prohibition in
the Constitution is if there is a lawful order fro a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation
of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Quote: N/A


G.R. No. 107566 November 25, 2004

Hint: newspaper aricle

Ponente: Chico_Nazario, J.:

Concededly, private respondent was not yet a public official at the time the 10 January 1988 article was published. Nevertheless, this
fact does not remove said article from the mantle of protection guaranteed by the freedom of expression provision of the
Constitution. Indeed, as early as 1909, in the case of United States v. Sedano, this Court had recognized the publics right to be informed on
the mental, moral, and physical fitness of candidates for public office.
Plainly, the rule only applies to fair comment on matters of public interest, fair comment being that which is true, or which if false,
expresses the real opinion of the author based upon reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds. The principle, therefore, does not
grant an absolute license to authors or writers to destroy the persons of candidates for public office by exposing the latter to public contempt
or ridicule by providing the general public with publications tainted with express or actual malice. In the latter case, the remedy of the person
allegedly libeled is to show proof that an article was written with the authors knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not. While the law itself creates the presumption that every defamatory imputation is malicious, nevertheless, the
privileged character of a communication destroys said presumption. The burden of proving actual malice shall then rest on the plaintiff,
private respondent herein.

Quote: N/A


G.R. No. L-12592. March 8, 1918

Ponente: MALCOLM, J :

The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a
matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot
criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted
terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort.

"The doctrine of privileged communications rests upon public policy, 'which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice,
though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer.'"

Privilege is classified as either absolute or qualified. With the first, we are not concerned. As to qualified privilege, it is as the words
suggest a prima facie privilege which may be lost by proof of malice. A communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the
party communicating has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest
or duty, although it contain criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable.

"The minister, . . . who wants his reforms to be reforms, must begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free and by instituting
Filipino delegates." Jose Rizal

Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe
relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with
the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Justice

The sword of Damocles in the hands of a judge does not hang suspended over the individual who dares to assert his prerogative as a
citizen and to stand up bravely before any official. Justice Malcom

"The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in
a despotism." Justice Gayner


Hint: Bataan Petrochemical Plant (Right to Information)

Ponente: J. Grio-Aquino

The petitioners request for Xerox copies of certain documents filed by BPC together with its original application, and its amended
application for registration with BOI, may not be denied, as it is the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of a CITIZEN to have ACCESS to information on

matters of PUBLIC CONCERN. However, this right is NOT absolute as it is subject to limitations like in this case, trade secrets and confidential,
commercial, financial information of the applicant BPC and matters affecting national security are EXCLUDED from the privilege.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Court Docket (Right to Information)

Ponente: J. Antonio

The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are
expressly granted access to official records, as well as documents of official acts or transactions, or decisions, subject to such LIMITATIONS
imposed by law.

Cited: Maintaining the flow of information depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process
is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.


Hint: Strike (Right to Strike of Civil Service Employees)

Ponente: J. Cortes

While there is no question that the Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize, it is SILENT as to whether
such recognition also includes the right to strike. x x x SSS is a GOCC with an ORIGINAL charter. Its employees are part of the civil service
and are covered by the Civil Service Commissions Memorandum Cir. No. 6 prohibiting strikes.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Loan / Operation Land Transfer (Non-impairment Clause)

Ponente: J. Vitug


Non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the POLICE POWER of the state, the reason being that public
welfare is superior to private rights.

Quote: n/a


Hint: PAL ticket irregularities (Custodial Investigation)

Ponente: J. Narvasa

Exhibits A (Handwritten notes) and exhibit K (Statement) are admissible in evidence as they were given SPONTANEOUSLY and
MIRANDA rights could not be invoked since the accused was not under custodial investigation by the law enforcement authorities, rather, was
subjected to an investigation made by PAL (his employer).

Cited: Miranda v. Arizona is the decision described as an earthquake in the world of law enforcement.


Hint: 9-yr old rape victim (No MIRANDA rights; Informal talk)
Ponente: J. Gonzaga-Reyes

Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the
exclusionary rule. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time
without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck down as inadmissible.
The policemans apparent attempt to circumvent the rule by insisting that the admission was made during an informal talk prior to
custodial investigation proper is not tenable. The appellant was invited to the police station as part of a general inquiry for any possible lead
to the perpetrators of the crime under investigation. At the time the alleged admission was made, the appellant was in custody and had been
arrested as the prime suspect in the rape and killing of Juanita Antolin. The exclusionary rule presumes that the alleged admission was
coerced, the very evil the rule stands to avoid.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Malversation from Surigao (Custodial Investigation; Double Jeopardy)

Ponente: J. Vitug

A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation as an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer.
Double jeopardy did not attach as the RTC has no jurisdiction to try the case. The RTC was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted an
arraignment of the accused which by then had already been conferred on the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, neither did the case there terminate
with conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Police line-up (Not part of Custodial Investigation)

Ponente: J. Padilla

Police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not entitled, at such stage, to counsel.
Under our Constitution, the right to counsel attaches at the start of investigation against a respondent and, therefore, even before
adversary judicial proceedings against the accused have begun.

Sarmiento in his dissent: Other than such a line-up, the subsequent confrontation had reinforced his need for legal assistance. Verily,
he was an unwilling audience to his accuser, if a mute witness to his own prosecution.


Hint: Murder of Atty. Garay / Counsel for the accused was the Municipal Attorney (Custodial Investigation)
Ponente: J. Bellosillo

The Constitution requires that counsel must be INDEPENDENT. Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel, public or private
prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.

In the ponencia: Men in uniform do not have blanket authority to arrest anybody they take fancy on, rough him up and put words into
his mouth. There is a living Constitution which safeguards the rights of an accused, a Penal law which punishes maltreatment of prisoners and
a Statute which penalizes the failure to inform and accord the accused of his constitutional rights.



Hint: Task Force Makabansa / Illegal Raid (Suspension of the Privilege of the writ HC)
Ponente: J. Yap

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is
suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ as a speedy means of obtaining liberty.

Cited: In times of great upheaval or of social and political stress, when the temptation is strongest to yield - borrowing the words of Chief Justice
Claudio Teehankee - to the law of force rather than the force of law, it is necessary to remind ourselves that certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and
cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our commitment to
democratic principles and to the rule of law compels us to reject the view which reduces law to nothing but the expression of the will of the predominant power in
the community. "Democracy cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of justice, unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for whom it is made.
Now this respect implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of Idealism. On going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that life demands of us a certain
residuum of sentiment which is not derived from reason, but which reason nevertheless controls.

Brandeis: In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means would bring terrible retribution.


Hint: Murder of Jesus Lapid (Grant of Bail despite Fiscals opposition)

Ponente: J. Capistrano

The courts discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled and might be capricious or whimsical. Such order granting or refusing bail must contain a
summary evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Parricide (Mandatory hearing for Bail)

Ponente: J. Panganiban


Even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail, it is still MANDATORY for
the court to conduct a HEARING or ASK SEARCHING QUESTIONS from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of
it, against the accused.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Hello Garci Tape (Freedom of Expression)

Ponente: C.J. Puno

A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger rule. This rule applies equally
to all kinds of media, including broadcast media.
Content-neutral restriction, on the other hand, is given an intermediate approach and requires only a substantial government interest
for its validity.

Thomas Jefferson: We cannot both be free and ignorant
Justice Holmes: It is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.
Cited: Any act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows.
In the ponencia: We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the
In the ponencia: A blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow too late.


Hint: Doctor terminated (Violation of Due process: Twin Notice Rule)

Ponente: J. Tinga

The notices required before an employee may be validly dismissed are: (a) a written notice served on the employee specifying
the grounds for termination and giving the employee reasonable opportunity to explain his/her side; (b) a hearing or conference
wherein the employee, with the assistance of counsel if so desired, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or
rebut evidence presented against him/her; and (c) written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify termination.

Clearly, the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized
therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or
misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his employment if the charges are proven to be true.

Quote: n/a


Hint: Voren Tablets overpriced (Unreasonable search by private individual)

Ponente: J. Davide, Jr.

As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC anchored its decision, we find no reason to revise the doctrine laid down
in People vs. Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel
admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities.

Quote: n/a